Marriage and Affairs

I never been a fan of using using science to infantilize the opinions of others. That's just bullying tactics and dishonest cheap academics.

Anywhoo...I should rephraze what I said earlier. Society does recognize marriage as important event. That is why people celebrate Golden or the rare diamond weddings. There may be cheating or may not be cheating...who knows? That's for the couples to fix...not others.

Now, observing past generations you can see more anniversaries for couples. The question now remains...how many golden anniversary weddings will THIS generation have?

We have to wait 50 years to find out. 😛

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
I never been a fan of using using science to infantilize the opinions of others. That's just bullying tactics and dishonest cheap academics.

We differ there, then. I like using facts wherever possible, and find it distasteful and stupid when someone tries to overrule that with "To me...".

It's not bullying, but let's suppose it was.

If a bully starts calling a kid "Fatty" because he's fat. Is he not fat just because it's bullying? No, he's still fat. Bullying or not (Not, in this case), there are facts at play and thus wrapping someone in cotton wool because they don't like their opinion being overruled by fact, is silly.

Doesn't matter if it's marriage or childbirth, or anything else that we're discussing.

Everyone has the right to an opinion, but nobody has the right to ignore or deny fact.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Don't tell people not to enter debates because they do not share your opinions, AC.

And don't try and tell me they are facts and not opinions. That is and always will be JUST your opinion. There are plenty of scientists who think the creation of life is a miracle regardless of the biological understanding of the process. Meanwhile, science still has no answers as to what life or consciousness really is. If you do not think it is a miracle, fine. You have no place telling others that they are objectively wrong to think otherwise and hence should not enter the debate.

Science has precise and exact answers for reproduction.

You enter a female, you ejaculate a couple of hundred million sperm, ONE reaches the egg, the baby forms and then it's born. It doesn't matter if it's a prostitute or your 20 year long wife. The process is the same and is unaltered regardless of emotional investment. It doesn't matter what your opinion is of any one particular case of intercourse, it's still intercourse and it's the same for everybody, can you argue that?

That happens God knows how many times per day, and without contraception, would happen many times more.

The only way you can argue for it being miraculous is in the sense that Mindship said, and even then, it doesn't work. It doesn't work by definition (Dictionary or otherwise) nor by sense.

Doctors and indeed people often use "Miraculous", but as a synonym for "Amazing". Such as a "Miraculous" recovery. Doctors know how the recovery happened, thus it's not miraculous, it's just a word used to describe something astounding.

Every doctor knows how the human body works, yet they call it miraculous. Again, as a synonym for another superlative.

So really, you're just about wrong in everything you said. Just like someone who considers childbirth a miracle, is wrong.

-AC

so you have evidence that there is no supernatural force active in the birth of a child?

That's an official warning to you for arguing the point, AC. I made it very clear for you not to do that. You know full well to only argue such decisions in private. The fact that you are also making an ass of yourself in the eyes of just about everyone is its own punishment.

Post like that again and it will be a ban. I recommend you stay out of this thread as I have no confidence you can stay in it without posting in an unacceptable manner.

I didn't argue against not telling him to enter the debate. I accept that decision. My post never once mentioned your decision.

Why are you warning me for debating the topic? You're essentially forcing me out of a thread because you dislike what I'm saying. I never once mentioned your decision because it was a fair one. I was wrong to say that to him, fair enough.

-AC

I am forcing you out (or at least to stop your current attitude) because of your unacceptable bullying tactics and because, frankly, your unpleasant attitude ruins almost any thread you take part in. Time and time again you have gone against the ethic of showing courtesy in your posts. I will not allow it any further.

Take it to PM if you want to discuss it.

So...how 'bout them Yankees?

Originally posted by inimalist
so you have evidence that there is no supernatural force active in the birth of a child?

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, that's what we call asking someone to "prove a negative".

indeed

I was pointing out the hypocrisy of trying to vehemetly claim that science proves the origins of life are not miraculous by making such anti-scientific statements.

Were AC being scientific, he would say something like, "we have no evidence that supernatural forces are active in childbirth, and there appears to be no variance or mechanism for which introducing the supernatural would give a more thourough explanation". However, if he wanted to be truly scientific, he probably wouldn't go around making absolute statements about untestable things.

At the point he was resorting to arguing semantics by what people mean when they say 'miracle' his argument was stone dead also. If it can die more than once.

lol, not to just jump right on the bash AC train, but I also really think it is tasteless for people to go around trying to "debunk" that which people put deep personal meaning into.

There are people for whom marriage is a sanctified event with deep spiritual meaning and connotations. Who are we, "men of science", to try and take that from them?

If they try to force it down my throat, or prevent homosexuals from marriage, sure, I'm down with that fight, but just to assault someone's belief in the miracle of childbirth or the religious importance of their marriage... I can't get behind that.

Arguing semantics is awesome.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, not to just jump right on the bash AC train, but I also really think it is tasteless for people to go around trying to "debunk" that which people put deep personal meaning into.

There are people for whom marriage is a sanctified event with deep spiritual meaning and connotations. Who are we, "men of science", to try and take that from them?

If they try to force it down my throat, or prevent homosexuals from marriage, sure, I'm down with that fight, but just to assault someone's belief in the miracle of childbirth or the religious importance of their marriage... I can't get behind that.

Almost as tasteless as continuing to reply to someone who, until now, couldn't reply back.

I am back, by the way, because Ushgarak gave me the green light to. The condition is, I'm never allowed to use my unanswered argument again in this thread. So, because there's another civil debate I was having with Dadudemon, I will respect that decision and not use it.

If anyone wishes to debate it with me further, find the post, quote it and reply to it in a PM. Perhaps you can do that, Inimalist, or would you have me reply to what you've said already, in PM?

-AC

Can we just move on...Marriage and infidelity?

Regarding infidelity, there are two kinds of men;

Those who have the capacity to cheat before marriage, and those who have the capacity to cheat after marriage.

If you have the pangs of a cheater before hand, don't marry. After marriage, if you find yourself in a tempting situation, get out of there or as I said, confront your loved one if necessary.

I say if necessary because, to quote Batman, some people deserve more than the truth and some are willing to do that.

I know someone who was in a relationship, went to this girl's house to cheat (Was the first girl he ever considered cheating with, he'd been with his girlfriend six years), and then left without anything happening. Had he told his girlfriend this, it would have possibly cause irreversible consequences.

He didn't, and they're happier than ever, he's never been tempted again.

Personally? I'd never do that anyway, but if I did, I'd tell. I just feel that whilst cheating is wrong, there are too many variables to judge, and too many circumstantial situations to judge on how to be honest.

-AC

Marriage traditions and fidelity are all well and good to me. When it comes to outside affairs, I would ask my wife permission before I did it, otherwise I wouldn't bother.

I just hate that the government encourages people to marry through incentives and discourages bachelorhood through taxes.

I like the topic. I think it mostly has to do with the sexual excitement it brings, or the lack of it in some marriages. I know a few married women who actively **** other guys. And I also know that their hubbies know about it at some level, at least. Its an interesting dynamic, and I don't ask too many questions about it. And these women typically keep the same **** buddy or buddies over a relatively long period of time. It's pretty much like having another, more long distance, relationship that involves nothing but talking dirty and sexual adventures. Pretty simple really.

Well, if you want to get down to science, our biology is supposed to pair us off, at least for 2-3 years. We are not necessarily supposed to be monogamous, but we are for at least that period of time.

I'm sure of a couple of you can correctly guess as to why we are supposed to fall in love for at least 2-3 years, especially if you've read another thread I made or just read some of my posts on the topic. We are supposed to fall in love (which, is a nice "chemical" romance, as well.), mate, and stay in love for about 2 years. Shortly after the 2 year mark, the "chemical romance" starts to wear off and the relationship, in order to continue, is more up to the personalities and actions of the individuals. No longer can the couple rely on that "high" from the initial "in love" portion of the relationship. They have to work at it. Their behaviors may not change, but the motivations behind those behaviors wil.

Of course, that's just an ideal situation. Humans are such complex social creatures that we can easily go against the grain of our "chemical romance." In other words, we can f*** up a good thing by doing something stupid.

To split it up among the genders (not modern, but hunter and gatherer):

Females would prefer that the males stick around, even after the initial phase of biology runs its course. Stick around to provide for the family.

Males, especially successful ones (ones with high testosterone levels, large in stature, intelligent, etc(, will want to copulate with other females. Sure, he may settle down for a few months to a couple of years, but he will want to move on.

The females will try to keep the male as the male provides security and food. The female also desires this for her young.

Now, back to the 2-3 years item I spoke of earlier. Why does that chemical phase last that long? To ensure that there are two parents to help raise the child through the most treacherous part of their life. The first 2 years of early human's life saw the highest mortality rates. Obviously, evolution took the proper course by having those that stuck together long enough for the child to "make it over the hump." No doubt that had we not been so intelligent, we may have continued to breed that into our future species success. We could have become like parrots where the vast majority bond for life and remain close throughout that life. However, due to the intelligence that evolved, humans also become very socially complex and that really messed with just about everything that our biology tells us to do.

So, where is all of this going? Obviously, marriage.

Marriage or "life-bonds" have been around since early man. This probably arose from couples bonding beyond that 2-3 year period. Being in love is not just a chemical thing, even in the first 2-3 years. Really, we can say that marriage; or rather, pairing off; was bred into our species success. It served a function in the preservation/propogation of the species.

Now, some have suggested that marriage is archaic or antiquated. Maybe...but not really. Sure, the ceremony/ritual of marriage may be old, but the bonding of two individuals is not old. That's part of our biology.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, if you want to get down to science, our biology is supposed to pair us off, at least for 2-3 years. We are not necessarily supposed to be monogamous, but we are for at least that period of time.

I'm sure of a couple of you can correctly guess as to why we are supposed to fall in love for at least 2-3 years, especially if you've read another thread I made or just read some of my posts on the topic. We are supposed to fall in love (which, is a nice "chemical" romance, as well.), mate, and stay in love for about 2 years. Shortly after the 2 year mark, the "chemical romance" starts to wear off and the relationship, in order to continue, is more up to the personalities and actions of the individuals. No longer can the couple rely on that "high" from the initial "in love" portion of the relationship. They have to work at it. Their behaviors may not change, but the motivations behind those behaviors wil.

Of course, that's just an ideal situation. Humans are such complex social creatures that we can easily go against the grain of our "chemical romance." In other words, we can f*** up a good thing by doing something stupid.

To split it up among the genders (not modern, but hunter and gatherer):

Females would prefer that the males stick around, even after the initial phase of biology runs its course. Stick around to provide for the family.

Males, especially successful ones (ones with high testosterone levels, large in stature, intelligent, etc(, will want to copulate with other females. Sure, he may settle down for a few months to a couple of years, but he will want to move on.

The females will try to keep the male as the male provides security and food. The female also desires this for her young.

Now, back to the 2-3 years item I spoke of earlier. Why does that chemical phase last that long? To ensure that there are two parents to help raise the child through the most treacherous part of their life. The first 2 years of early human's life saw the highest mortality rates. Obviously, evolution took the proper course by having those that stuck together long enough for the child to "make it over the hump." No doubt that had we not been so intelligent, we may have continued to breed that into our future species success. We could have become like parrots where the vast majority bond for life and remain close throughout that life. However, due to the intelligence that evolved, humans also become very socially complex and that really messed with just about everything that our biology tells us to do.

So, where is all of this going? Obviously, marriage.

Marriage or "life-bonds" have been around since early man. This probably arose from couples bonding beyond that 2-3 year period. Being in love is not just a chemical thing, even in the first 2-3 years. Really, we can say that marriage; or rather, pairing off; was bred into our species success. It served a function in the preservation/propogation of the species.

Now, some have suggested that marriage is archaic or antiquated. Maybe...but not really. Sure, the ceremony/ritual of marriage may be old, but the bonding of two individuals is not old. That's part of our biology.

🙂

Originally posted by Mindship
Isn't there a theory that a woman's cleavage looks like a butt to encourage face-to-face copulation (helping to strengthen the pair bond)?

🙂

Never heard of that one, before.

I have heard, however, that kissing comes from a need to "get in there" and exchange pheromones...which occurs at close proximity to each other's faces.

..would explain where this primate Kissing thing came from and why over 90% of humans kiss.